It would be pretty weird for McCain to win. I don't know if it would necessarily mean a Bradley effect so large we'd have to call it an Obama effect, as Nicholas alludes to, but for the polls to be this consistent for this many weeks (roughly a 7-point lead since late September), there would have to be a massive suicide watch on nearly every pollster in the country. None of these guys could be trusted to even count their toes ever again.

That said, I'm still out knocking doors again today, tomorrow, and Saturday making sure those guys have some job security.

With all the voter registration irregularities, this election promises to end up in the courts. I'm sure Ms. Althouse and other past & present law professors will be in their glory. The law profession will then be in a position to step forward, right past wrongs, and award the election to Obama.

I don't think McCain will win but it could be a lot closer than many think. To listen to most of the media this is a done deal. The polls are far from reliable and to the extent Obama has a lead there are enough undecideds to go along with the out and out racists and heretics to make it potentially very close.

But when the registered voters in some places exceed the voting age population, it could be a rout.

Progress takes time, goes very slowly. Race is a huge issue with large segments of the American people. It does not mean they are racist, just not comfortable.

A poll a few months ago revealed that most Americans do not work in workplaces that are racially mixed. Someone can look it up. This does not allow someone to see past skin color, and it might just be reality that we have not come as far as we would like to think. Willingness to put people back in power that have virtually destroyed everything reveals how deep the racial component is.

Either that or reverse Bradley effect that some right-wing columnists have discussed, where some people are not telling the people around them or pollsters that they are voting for Obama. I personally have seen a few cases of this in real life and may discuss later in thread.

Polls are junk. Pretending to be objective and scientific, they are actually subjective and distorted.

The poll questions can be slanted to obtain the results you desire. The pool of people questioned can be and has been hand picked to obtain the desired result.

It has already been observed that certain demographics do not participate in polls and hang up on pollsters (conservatives, working people who just don't answer the phone at night, suburban and rural people). That the cell phone, lack of land line and do not call list, phenomenon have distorted the results.

If Obama doesn't win, despite all the fraudulent vote registrations, enormous amounts of money spent, strong arm caucus tactics and the never ending crying about racism whenever anyone farts in their general direction.....I expect all hell to break out in urban areas.

Ohh. And Trevor, don't bother knocking on my door unless you want to end up in the hospital.

If - and this is a huge "IF" - the video that the LA Times is purportedly holding on Obama is real AND it gets released before the election, then frankly Obama will go down - even in the polls - overnight.

Is the LA Times doing for Obama what it and other main stream media did for Edwards?

"And Trevor, don't bother knocking on my door unless you want to end up in the hospital."

Ha ha ha. I hope you attack someone for knocking on your door. Your kind of crazy should be locked up. Unless being an "Internet Tough Guy" is how you keep it exorcised. If that's the case, flame on for the sake of your community.

If Obama wins it will be the fairest, smoothest most well run election in the history of the Republic.

If he loses it will be a disaster of biblical proportions. I mean real fire and brimstone kind of stuff, seas and rivers boiling, the dead coming back to life, dogs and cats living together, MASS HYSTERIA.

Doyle of course would probably be so overcome he'd self detonate in his parents basement would be covered in human goo and cheetos.

I said it here first (well, here being work - if you don't believe me, just ask the secretary outside my office!): Obama would have a big lead and, just before the elections, pollsters and the media would show the race tightening dramatically, but Barack would win handily. A tightening race benefits pollsters ("you must buy our services so you'll know which side of that narrowing gap you fall on") and media ("you must buy advertising if you want to fall on the winning side of the narrowing gap").

I stand by my analysis. But if Barack doesn't win, I'm locking the door and not walking to work on Wednesday (Philly here; we are Barack-Country, and I imagine we'll have our 2d riot in a week if he loses).

Ann - you should have a contest: which reader can come closest to guessing the final national split.

Pollsters have a hard time reaching people who only have cell phones. Many people will not respond to telephone polls. Others who do respond will lie for fear of being branded racist (even if they're only talking long-distance to a college-age poll taker).

What would be "weird" about McCain winning?

It would be normal to elect an extremely experienced politician renowned for his ability to compromise and who's also a military veteran.

It is commonly believed, and really not all that controversial, that the stock market will do better in the short term with McCain than with Obama. I know that sounds partisan but it really follows directly from the anticpated tax policies of each candidate. Even if you believe that Obama's policies are better for the long-term economy, the market's outlook is too short-term to reflect that now.

Furthermore, I'd say that the likely Obama win is already priced into the market. So I don't anticipate much of a dip if he wins, but I do anticipate a big spike if he doesn't.

However, it got me to thinking: do the large investment institutions rely on the same polls you and I read about? If so, which ones to they favor? Do any commission their own?

Seems to me that the only people who have more at stake than they do are the candidates themselves---and they do internal polling. So it doesn't seem farfetched to think larger investment houses might, too.

What did you expect? Criticize Obama = racist. Hell Clinton and Ferraro were accused of being racist in the primaries. If he's willing to eat his own, you think a conservative will get a pass for anything short of genuflection?

The polls which gave Obama a big lead and had him over 50% were push polls where they didn't let people be undecided. The ones where there was an undecided catagory have consistently shown it to be a closer race, Obama up never more than 6 from the ones I have seen, and also showed a huge number of undecides, like 12%-15%, for this late in the race.

Also, the polls are based on projected turnout models. If the youth vote actually turns out in large numbers, than Obama may really have a 5 or a 7 point lead. But the youth vote has never once turned out despite being predicted to turn out in every election in my lifetime. If the youth vote doesn't turn out and the turnout looks more like 2004, then the race is really close. Further, it should be remember that Obama underperformed his polls in all of the big primaries against Hillary.

If the undecides break really against Obama, McCain probably wins. That seems unlikely but undecides broke big for Ford in 76 nearly tipping the election. They also broke very badly for Bush in 2000 costing him the popular vote.

If the turnout models are wrong and Obama underperforms his polls like he did against Hillary, McCain again probably wins. If both of those things happen, McCain certainly wins. Obama has had about three bad weeks of press now between the 2001 videotape, the Biden "he will be tested" gaffe, the ACORN scandal, and the Joe the Plummer "spread the wealth" gaffee.

The polls are clearly tightening indicating that perhaps the undecideds are getting cold feet about Obama. Also, the whole socialism issue gets the Republican base fired up and more likly to turn out. I would very suprised if either candidate won by more than two or three points.

Right now, Obama is ahead in every poll and has to be considered the favorite. Things will have to break right for McCain to win. But it is not unthinkable that they will break for McCain. I don't think either one of them should be celbrating just yet.

And if the Slate poll and the anecdotal evidence I am seeing in real life are any indicator, the split is over class and education on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps predicated on race, but on the Obama side many of us love the upwardly mobile image of Barack and Michelle. That does not play well with the uneducated, lower class right-winger and in some cases democrats.

The 55-1 at Slate was pretty shocking, and possibly the reveal as to the class war that will eventually envelop this country. I don't want a self-loathing lower class guy like Joe the non-plumber plumber calling the shots in my political system. It looks like he might. My side won't be backing down whether Obama wins or not. They will never turn us into them, they are ignorant. As Joe the non-plumber plumber revealed in his interview with Larry Elder yesterday afternoon. Shocking and horrific.

If I ever have children(which I doubt) and they go to college I will be making sure they also get some vocational training in electrical work and plumbing. Whether they attended Harvard or community college. They can't be in a world where they are forced to deal with and pay the destructive Joe the non-plumber plumbers of the world. I would liberate them through vocational education. I'm thinking of taking a few plumbing courses myself. Joe has destroyed my image of plumbers, and he isn't even a real one.

I am sorry to say this, but I think we will have a war regardless of who wins.

If the Believers are right and Obama wins with a supermajority in boh houses, the I think will soon have a packing of courts and a Constitutional Convention to get rid of all the little bothers.

I don't know if the new Constitution will bee ratified, but I am pretty sure a revolutionary war will erupt resulting in a declaration of martial law and the suspension of the Constituion, making ratification un-necessary.

The electoral math just doesn't seem to work in McCain's favor at the moment. There's not a single Kerry'04 state that he appears close to flipping, whereas Obama looks like Virginia and Colorado are moving toward his column. That gives Obama a comfortable win.Add Nevada, Ohio and if Florida and Missouri continue trending to Obama it becomes a rout.

I've got Obama somewhere around 338 EV and somewhere in the 4 to 5 million popular vote spread.

"That does not play well with the uneducated, lower class right-winger and in some cases democrats."

Perhaps my three graduate degrees place me on the wrong side? I am as upwardly mobile as anyone. Further, I don't see anything upwardly mobile about a couple who have never held steady jobs for more than a few years and got rich from shady government influence. If Michele and Barry had ever done something productive in society, they would be upwardly mobile. As it is, they are just two more members of the parasitic political class. I have a lot more respect for the guy who fixes my car or remodels my house than I do for the community organizer down the street shucking and jiving about justice or the do nothing hospital administrator who holds down a six figure job because her connected husband go the hospital an earmark.

Rasmussen track this morning has Obama +3, closest it's been in over a month (but Obama still at 50%).

My prediction is that Obama will win the popular vote by 2-4%, roughly the same margin as Bush's 2.5% win over Kerry. He'll pick up 6-7 Bush 2004 states: IA, CO, NV, NM, OH, VA, and possibly FL.

If McCain pulls a Truman and wins, it will be razor-thin, by at most 1% in the popular vote, and he won't flip any Kerry states, but rather will hold Obama to picking up only 2 Bush 2004 states: IA and NM.

I don't want a self-loathing lower class guy like Joe the non-plumber plumber calling the shots in my political system

Please explain just exactly how Joe the Plumber is self loathing and low class and compared to who and why YOU own the political system. I'm really curious to understand your world view.

If I ever have children(which I doubt) and they go to college I will be making sure they also get some vocational training in electrical work and plumbing. Whether they attended Harvard or community college. They can't be in a world where they are forced to deal with and pay the destructive Joe the non-plumber plumbers of the world. I would liberate them through vocational education. I'm thinking of taking a few plumbing courses myself. Joe has destroyed my image of plumbers, and he isn't even a real one

We also hold out the hope that you won't replicate yourself.

So, in your world view. Working as a plumbing employee in a plumbing firm where the owner is the plumbing contractor who holds the plumbing license doesn't qualify Joe as a plumber. How do you feel about carpenters who work for a general contractor building your house? Not carpenters either?

Acutally, if you do have children, it might be a good idea to get them some plumbing smarts so they know that shit runs downhill and water freezes at 32 degrees.

First, the data. There's nothing about the 401 undecided voters surveyed Oct. 7-25 that suggests they're going to break overwhelmingly for one candidate over the other. The two candidates had the same favorable rating (51 percent), and the same percentage of voters said they liked only one candidate or the other (13 percent). The respondents were also split evenly on the question of which party they'd like to see control Congress.

These voters see Obama as better on the economy, and they say he shares their priorities more than McCain does. Yet by a huge margin -- 39 percent to 10 percent -- they see McCain as more prepared to lead the country.

If you're so worried about being called racists, just don't say racist shit and you should be in the clear. It's not rocket science.

Oh bullshit Doyle because its only racist shit when a conservative says something. It was fucks like you who ran ads with Liberman in blackface and that was just dandy. Powell and Rice were referred to as house niggers by Harry Belafonte and you all just chuckled. So spare me your faux outrage you hyporcrite.

Most of the polling companies are over-estimating the percentage of Democrats in the general population. They interpret dissatisfaction with the Bush administration in only direction, towards the left. They fail to understand that many, many people are disappointed with Bush because he's too liberal. But the pollsters are predicting a large shift towards the Democrats,and with that assumption they justify over-polling Democrats in every poll by sometimes ridiculous margins.

The polls are junk for a lot of reasons, but they're getting a lot of press because the media wants to depress conservatives and Republicans and convince them it's all over so they'll stay home and not vote. It's pathetic.

It's also pathetic that anyone can say "Obama has had three weeks of bad press" and really mean it. The reporting on the SNL skit featuring Joe Biden's gaffe-of-the-week conveniently failed to mention that it was practically verbatim what Joe said. There are plenty of people out there who still have no idea who Bill Ayers is, never mind Rashid Khalidi. If Obama loses, it will just prove that the press is incompetent in more ways than one. Not only do they will refuse to report information that's damaging to their candidate, they can't even effectively spread a message.

OK, here is a tough-edged hypo, which law like Ann professors love to proffer and analyze:

If Obama looses and there are no misdeeds that altered the outcome, if all hell breaks loose as others have mentioned, will Obama forcefully take to the airwaves and call for immediate cessation and calm acceptance?

Will he extol the virtue and beauty of the rule of law, and the will of the majority?

Or will he stand passively by, make squishy remarks about understanding that there may be some justifiable rage, and watch the world burn?

I'm not sure I know the answer to that question, because I am not sure I know how much Obama values the rule of law.

I’m not sure, after his associations with Wright and Ayres, that I know where Obama stands on the beauty of our constitutional system.

I hope he’d work diligently to calm everyone down, but I just can’t say for sure that he or Michelle would. And that is a shame.

But none of this is to say I don’t know Doyle who appears to be ready to accept any win, regardless of what laws might have been broken to get it.

It was fucks like you who ran ads with Liberman in blackface and that was just dandy.

Well Jane Hamsher isn't that much like me, and I didn't like the blackface thing. Joe Lieberman remains a slithering little reptile.

Oh you didn't like it. Did you call her a racist? Did you call her an anti-Semite? Slithering reptile? Well I guess that's not as bad as the offspring of pigs and monkeys.

I notice you didn't have the balls to address any of your Democratic bretheren including your candidate's own VP for thier racist comments. Pretty much proves my point about you being a hypocrite. It's little whiners like you who just love to find a racist around every corner but run away when confronted with racists within their own party.

Go ahead. I'm not going to whine about being accused of anti-semitism because I don't care what some Lieberman-loving moron thinks. Advice you poor victims of the "PC Police" might take to heart.

Actually Doyle no one was whining about your faux racism outrage. Simply pointing out that you respond to critisism of Obama with accusations of racism. Standard lefty response when they can't argue facts.

MadisonMan said... I disagree. I think the way the results are presented in the press is junk, and that's because journalists don't understand one bit of math or statistics.

MM, Polls can be fine, but I think you have to also agree that some pollsters seem to be "pushing" results, rather than trying to produce reliable outcomes. How else can one explain the distribution of outcomes, well outside the calculated margin of errors.

If the press is in that tank, which I think you agree, why not some pollsters?

Joe the Plumber says if Obama is elected that means the death of Israel. Why Ann Althouse can't see so clearly what Joe Plumber can remains a mystery. Can't she see Iran's Supreme Council will be permanent guests in the Lincoln Bedroom? Can't she see that every dwelling in every housing project will be retrofitted with a bank style air chute system where they will collect checks from a new withholding taken directly from Ann's paycheck? I mean isn't it obvious ACORN has led a Poverty Insurgency to take down our most powerful financial institutions?

I notice you didn't have the balls to address any of your Democratic bretheren including your candidate's own VP for thier racist comments.

Did you notice that I wasn't complaining about racist comments? It would have been a feat of reading comprehension for you, but if you look upthread I was actually objecting the the constant whining by conservatives that they are unable to criticize Obama without exposing themselves to unfair accusation of racism.

And anyway, would I come here to voice my displeasure with Democrats? No. I do my complaining about Democrats at Daily Kos.

The fact of the matter is he is not so far ahead. It always gets closer as people start to pay more attention. I know the lying dirt bags in the main stream media are using manufactured polls to drive the narrative, but the reality is different. Obama has consistently underperformed especially in the later primaries. And the more Clueless Joe lets the cat out of the bag the tougher it is going to be.

Dust Bunny Queen said... I don't want a self-loathing lower class guy like Joe the non-plumber plumber calling the shots in my political system

Please explain just exactly how Joe the Plumber is self loathing and low class and compared to who and why YOU own the political system. I'm really curious to understand your world view.

If I ever have children(which I doubt) and they go to college I will be making sure they also get some vocational training in electrical work and plumbing. Whether they attended Harvard or community college. They can't be in a world where they are forced to deal with and pay the destructive Joe the non-plumber plumbers of the world. I would liberate them through vocational education. I'm thinking of taking a few plumbing courses myself. Joe has destroyed my image of plumbers, and he isn't even a real one

We also hold out the hope that you won't replicate yourself.

So, in your world view. Working as a plumbing employee in a plumbing firm where the owner is the plumbing contractor who holds the plumbing license doesn't qualify Joe as a plumber. How do you feel about carpenters who work for a general contractor building your house? Not carpenters either?

Acutally, if you do have children, it might be a good idea to get them some plumbing smarts so they know that shit runs downhill and water freezes at 32 degrees.

Well, at least you got off some witty lines. Very funny stuff.

It's not a world view, do you not accept what you witness with your own eyes. Joe is an ignoramus, listen to the interviews(as I always say). Self-loathing is when we vote against our own interests(listening to his pap on Elder yesterday was not believable, including his discussions with his boss about buying the plumbing business, holy shiiite). Joe is more worried about the upper class than he is about his own family. How else would you define self-loathing?

I include myself in the group of upwardly mobile, educated people who are dismayed by the Joe types that have wreaked havoc on this country(my and their political system). Just as Joe views this as his political system. I used bad phrasing. We are polarized and don't like each other's ideas for the country. Obviously it is Joe types poltical system as well, they will probably decide the election.

BTW, Joe painted himself on the Elder show as a straggler, no defined profession.

You seem to want me to praise willful ignorance because you do, I will not do it. Believe it or not, there are many working class people who are trying to improve their life and that of their families and care about knowledge and the correct use of the english language. Joe is yet another one that can't even use the english language, AMAZING. And he probably shits all over immigrants that don't speak english like so many other right-wingers, he should try to master it himself and shut the eff up.

I have Joe types in my family DBQ, but a majority are collecting government checks in one way or another. At least this right-wing working class guy does try to work, I'll give him credit for that. In my family the right-wing working classers(4 our of 7 on my mother's side of the family) sit on their ass, collect government money, then vote republican.

The footage I watched on Sullivan yesterday of the folks at the Palin rally has me dismayed beyond belief. Andrew was right, ugly ugly ugly. This whole thing has the potential for disaster, I will never go along with anything from these animals. Nor will many upwardly mobile folks.

Well, who, when hiring a pollster, isn't going to check out past predictions to see how they've done? Would a rational person hire someone who always gets it wrong?

I'm not convinced that pollsters deliberately tweak their results to yield something that meets the demands of an eveywhere in-the-tank press. If you are given the answers asked in the Poll -- and those are usually available somewhere -- then I think you can draw your own best conclusions. The important thing is to ignore any interpretation in the Press, because the journalist writing the story is ignorant.

Isn't James Carville the guy who first hinted threateningly that we'd have race riots if we didn't vote for Obama?

I'm getting a disinterested vibe here in solidly blue Maryland. Hardly any political signage in my area inside the beltway. The real life people I know who were giving money to and parties for Kerry last time are strangely silent. I hear people fuming about Palin, but no one talking about Obama. Are people simply weary of the incredibly long election? Has the bloom begun to come off the rose?

You bang on a door in my neighborhood after dark, the cops get called - unless it's Halloween.

Doyle, if Hamsher isn't like you why do you act like everyone here is a wingnut? Why do you tar everyone as racists? You can claim otherwise, but that his how you come across.

You see Doyle is a big time Met's fan and Met fans are all the same. They claim that they are winners but they never win anything. You can still find Met fans who will tell you that their team is better than the Phillies. That David Wright and Jose Reyes are the two best players in the league and you can't even think of trading them even if you got Babe Ruth and Cy Young in return.

The Mets were far out ahead of the pack last two years and then lost it at the end. Doyle is big time Met's fan. He is also a big time Obama fan. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

That mere differences of opinion in political matters can spawn such responses/reactions in some folks just makes me...sad.

Statement of fact. My gate has a no soliciting sign and beware of dog. If you tresspass ...beware of dog. Fair warning.

I also hang up on pollsters or if I've had a few cocktails give them bogus information, throw away all political literature, refuse to sign petitions, tell people who approach me on the street with political opinions to back off and leave me alone, don't give money to panhandlers (get a job) AND send back every single unsolicited credit card application (blank of course) so the companies will have to pay the postage.

You can still find Met fans who will tell you that their team is better than the Phillies.

Not me! I was on record early in the season saying that the Phillies were better this year. Even when the Mets when on the post-Manuel winning streak, I was waiting for the party to be over. It was a miracle they lasted as long as they did.

As a software engineer I'm not going to be surprised if McCain wins this. We see this in software all the time. We have a tool which repeatedly has demonstrated problems (polls) being reported upon by a profession who has demonstrated difficulty with objectivity and discussing statistics. These tend to reinforce the reporter's built-in biases. Having two entities with uncertain reliability combined means more "surprises", not less. If McCain wins, the pollsters will provide a long list of excuses and the reporters will point to the pollsters.

"Self-loathing is when we vote against our own interests(listening to his pap on Elder yesterday was not believable, including his discussions with his boss about buying the plumbing business, holy shiiite). Joe is more worried about the upper class than he is about his own family. How else would you define self-loathing?"

Such garbage. Who are you to define his self-interest? It's amusing to me that the left only talks about "self-interest" when it's criticizing poor conservatives. What about wealthy liberals? Do you scoff at their self-loathing because they vote against their economic interests?

Of course not. A poor plumber in Ohio can be concerned about his tax treatment when he hits it big. A wealthy San Francisco liberal can care about the treatment of the homeless in his city. Your "self-loathing" argument is just bullshit disguising your inability to understand how people can vote outside of pure, naked self-interest.

The Drill SGT said... I would like to see a poll done with the same R/D/I mix as came out of the 2004 election booth, rather than one trying to oversample blacks or cell phone voters, etc.

Do you think that the R/D/I mix will be the same in 2008 as it was in 2004? Setting aside the cell phone issue, do you think the number of blacks voting in 2008 will be the same as 2004?

I am not saying that of the pollsters has the mix right but I seriously doubt that the R/D/I mix will be the same as in 2004 and I would be amazed if the black vote is not higher this year than in 2008.

Anyone who thinks this is over, isn't watching. Yes, Obama's chances of winning are MUCH greater than McCain's, but polls are just that, polls. You interview couple hundred folks and decide how the whole nation votes. This year the pollsters are using a new model abandoning the "traditional" model. That is fine as long as the "new" assumptions hold true. It could be that the polls underestimate the support for Obama, or maybe the youth vote sleeps in. However, the folks who keep thinking this election is over need to get a reality check. In the Democratic primaries, the undecided voters broke to Hillary in the final primaries and that may happen again. The pollster were WAY off in NH primary (more than 11 points). The current polls are being used as much to "form" opinion as they are being used to gauge opinion. The only poll that counts is the one taken on November 4th.

A lot of the kulturkampf is encapsulated in this one sentence. To them, a plumber is someone with the requisite pieces of paper saying he's a plumber. To us, a plumber is someone who gets paid to work on pipes.

Poor Joe the Plumber. First he has the audacity to ask a real question to the One. Then he's assured that as long as he's not too successful ($250k) then he's gonna get a break. Now Biden has let it slip that sorry but the math was a little bit off. It wseems $150k is the new demarcation line between rich and poor. Since Joe the Plumber didn't endorse Joe the Senator's guy, maybe this is just payback?

Having lost Joe the Plumber I predict Obama is gonna focus more on that dead vote.

In 1980 Reagan was behind all the way up to election day. He was down 8 points 10 days before the election. Then on election day when real votes were cast and counted, he won going away. Practically a landslide. The polls don't mean squat.

But Obama's GOTV efforts may be able to roust these folks from their beds, grab them by the scruff of the neck, and drag them to the polls. That would be impressive.

I overheard one of my co-workers yesterday commenting that she is hoping it doesn’t rain on election day because Dems are notorious for not going to the polls if it’s raining. I asked; “Why? Do you guys melt like the Wicked Witch of the West?”

Well he was sticking a fork in Hillary long before everyone was saying she was going to usurp the throne from The One. Although his choice of call girls is a bit weird. Especially considering he looks and sounds as gay as a three dollar bill.

Stop your whining and learn the difference between registration fraud and voting fraud.

Doyle, calm down. You're guy is probably going to win.

1. In the presence of registratiion fraud, voting fraud is more likely and you missing my main point, there are a lot of uncertainties, to include voting irregularities that may pop up. Do you deny that?

2. You've been crying since the first day you showed here to comment and although you may think you're being smart, funny or snide, you are in no position to criticize people for something you are best known for. And I am saying that as someone who has seen you make valid points and express well thought out arguments.

I think a McCain win would make it almost impossible for several reporters to keep their composure and simply report the facts. Okay, maybe Olbermann won't throw his chair across the room, and Chris Matthews may not start weeping, but if the bias is obvious now, it's going to knock everyone on his ass if Obama loses.

And I have to admit that despite all of my problems with his candidacy, virtually everyone I know is an Obama supporter and many will be absolutely crushed. But that's part of my problem with his campaign - their prejudices and hatreds aren't problematic because they're "the good guys". How many little kids have been indoctrinated with this crap?

OT random theory of the afternoon - maybe the LATimes won't release the tape because Obama is smoking in it.

Worry about making a goddamn bit of sense and then worry about formatting issues.

Wow! You can fucking swear! Shit, how the fuck do you fucking do that? I just can't fucking figure it out. This damn thing with oaths, cursing, profanity, obscenity and all that motherfucking cocksucking asslicking shit just confuses me all to hell.

You know, fuck, man, shit, I thought it was a sign of God-rotting superior intelligence to talk (post) dirty. But since you can't understand the very beshitted sentence you yourself just fucking wrote with one cornholing noun exchanged for another, I think we've ruled that out.

Besides, aren't you supposed to be running around England with Bodie hunting down crooks for Cowley at CI5? London calling, man! I bet they can teach you some new swears, too.

Oh, and, more seriously - I mean answer this one of you can - if you are not a woman, or are not gay, why would you hang your vote on being pro-abortion or pro-gay? Where's the self-interest in that?

And I have to admit that despite all of my problems with his candidacy, virtually everyone I know is an Obama supporter and many will be absolutely crushed

It must be a geographic thing because I know of only one Obama supporter. Last weekend, we went on a Sunday drive in an almost 200 mile loop around our area and saw exactly zero Obama signs. Lots and lots of McCain Palin signs and even some Sarah!! signs. We did see a bumper sticker for Obama on a Prius with a San Francisco license plate frame.

This geographic difference is why the elite media are shocked when their candidate doesn't win. They (the media) just don't know anyone outside of their own urban coastal communities and cannot imagine that other viewpoints just might exist.

The geographic differences might also explain why the polls are not always reflective of the actual voting.

I don't claim that the polls are made up, I believe they show the results of the MSM's efforts to portray Obama positively and McCain/Palin negatively.

Well if that's the case, then the press will have more to answer for in the case of an Obama win than an Obama loss. I thought your point was that the press has been irresponsible in reporting the fact that Obama appears very likely to win.

In any case, I think the issue is that most Americans prefer Obama/Biden to McCain/Palin.

In 1980 Reagan was behind all the way up to election day. He was down 8 points 10 days before the election. Then on election day when real votes were cast and counted, he won going away. Practically a landslide. The polls don't mean squat.

I don't recall that scenario at all. My recollection -- perhaps faulty, I was in college at the time -- was that Carter was in trouble from day 1.

DBQ - geography, yes. I am about an hour from NYC. But I'm also an artist, so most of the people I know simply assume I have been incandescent with rage for the past eight years, and pro-Obama. I receive lots of emails and petitions from people who don't consider it necessary to ask if I share their views. It's treated as a given.

I don't personally know anyone who regards this race as I do, and I'm pretty moderate. I like the GOP minus the "base", I guess. I wish McCain could have become President in 2000.

I've been having a fantasy today, (Dawkins notwithstanding) about some super hackers uploading a signal tonight at 8 p.m. overriding the Obama commercial with anti-O comedy bits. Do you think the backlash against McCain would be offset by the kids of voting age just loving the hacker vibe?

It's kinda like when you tell Met fans that Wright and Reyes are no big deal. I mean they have ok stats but they never won anything. When the money is on the line, when it's the clutch, when they have to win to get to the playoffs: they vote present.

MadisonMan said... I don't recall that scenario at all. My recollection -- perhaps faulty, I was in college at the time -- was that Carter was in trouble from day 1

I don't remember it either but I did some reading on it. After the primaries, sentiment was definitely against Carter and polls were showing mid-50s support for Reagan. Rough campaign blah, blah, blah.

Before the lone presidential one week before the election Reagan was, indeed, down by 8% in RV and 3.0% in LV. Immediately after the debate, polling indicated that Reagan was ahead by 3% among LV.

It's not the polls, it's the electoral college. In 1992 Bill Clinton got 43% of the popular vote but won 70% of the electoral college. If, for example, Obama already has California's 54 electoral votes, he could poll 50.1% or 90+% in that state and it wouldn't affect that state's electoral vote.

Thanks for the info. The scenario is quite different. One Presidential debate just before the election, and then "everyone" changed their mind. I don't quite see the same parallel this year, then, except Obama is talking on the telly tonight (? tomorrow?). I think I have to wash my hair then, or maybe clean the kitchen floor, so I won't be watching.

I wonder if that big post-debate swing in 1980 is a reason that you never see debates right before the election anymore. They seem to end weeks beforehand now. (The date of that last 1980 debate is a real outlier!)

I really am pulling for McCain to win just to reduce the US carbon footprint. All those Hollywood types who couldn't bear to live here 4 more years. Plus watching Olbermann and Matthews as they sit thru Election night - priceless. Then again, Wednesday morning the women on the View will all insufferably whining. Well, less one.

John, you mention electoral college issues and the possibility that Obama could have a huge victory. I also see a not so unrealistic scenario where it could end up 269-269, a tie which would end up an Obama victory, but nonetheless interesting to think about.

I do. I am not sure how or why I do that but I did it for as long as I can remember.

I wonder if my mother taught me to look at the toilet paper after I wipe.Actually, I am going to call her about that right now and ask her if while potty training me she had me look at the toilet paper after I wipe.

This is an incredibly important question and in all liklihood will have an impact on the election.

Here be the deal. In the modern polling era, let's say since 1976, when political operatives inside and outside the media started figuring out they could use polls to influence public opinion and they could maybe use them to suppress voter turnout too, the polls have never, NEVER had the Republican ahead when he actually ended up losing. Exactly the opposite has always been the case. The polls to one degree or another have consistently underestimated how well the Republican presidential candidate actually ended up doing.

That doesn't happen by accident. The butcher's thumb is clearly on the scale.

Oxbay, I'm more rueful about how the war was handled. I think McCain would have done a far superior job (and still do). As soon as Rumsfeld gave the news conference where he claimed the press was repeating the same footage of some guy walking by with a vase, blah blah I knew we were screwed. I was so insulted by him at that moment, and so were most of the press - rightly so, in my opinion. It's very painful to think about, still.

As for the population on the left that didn't even regard Saddam's regime as a threat or a tragedy, yes of course they would have just said all the same crap. But there was a huge group of people who knew the confrontation was going to happen at some point, supported the decision, and felt badly screwed over by this administration's approach. They treated all people with concerns and doubts like lefty flakes, and it was disrespectful.

Major media polling always overstates the democratic vote. If Obama is not ahead by 4-5, he will lose in the general election.

Most of the 2004 polls understated republican turnout and overstated democratic turnout. If the same thing happens in 2008, Obama will lose.

It is conventional wisdom that the young and minorities will turn out in droves to vote Obama. But, what if the conventional wisdom is wrong? Obama will lose.

Also, people in the end may reject socialism and vote McCain. Voters have a clear choice: Go with McCain and traditional America - God, Country, and Freedom. Or vote for Change - Socialism, Secularism, and Slavery to big government.

Stever said - I also see a not so unrealistic scenario where it could end up 269-269 ....

It is interesting, as I found the article on EC blowouts to be. That is, fairly close popular voting not proportional to the EC tally. Of course, if you are a democrat you should love the EC because the 3 largest blocks are usually all going your way.

I would feel more confident in the polls if we knew the geographic distribution of the poll numbers and their changes. Maybe that's out and I just haven't seen it.

Integrity - thanks for the nice response, and for the compliment to my family. And with you keeping the ole raincoat on, it's win-win all around.

Well state by state polls upon which those EC projestions are made are less frequent and less reliable than national polls. So while I can create a scenario where its close or tied in the EC, it could end up being a blowout. "Tightening" the race, as you say, in California or NY only means he gets a hundred EC votes with less of a popular vote marigin, so a national poll may not be a very good indicator of EC.

That said, history would suggest McCain, as has almost every Republican for quite some time, will do better than the polls indicate. He could lose by 2% and get trounced in EC.

Whether or not all that early voting favors one party or the other remains to be seen, but there will surely be plenty of papers written on that subject. Certainly the pollsters can't have an inkling of how to handle such a sea change in voting patterns.

The popular vote margin was 2.4% in 2004, and the electoral vote margin was 35 seats out of 437.

It will be interesting to see how the press spins it if Obama wins, but by less than 2.4%. As MadisonMan said that can quite reasonably look more lopsided in the EC. Will they seize on that and call it a mandate, even if the popular vote puts Obama no more popular than Bush '04?

If Obama wins by say one percent, does anyone think the spin will be that he underperformed? Given all the election advantages Obama has he should have an EC landslide. Even if McCain wins, Republicans will take a thumping. Still, if Murtha gets beat there will be a lot of vets smiling!

MadisonMan said...In 1980 Reagan was behind all the way up to election day. He was down 8 points 10 days before the election. Then on election day when real votes were cast and counted, he won going away. Practically a landslide. The polls don't mean squat.

I don't recall that scenario at all. My recollection -- perhaps faulty, I was in college at the time -- was that Carter was in trouble from day 1.

I think this is much more likely than anyone admits. If he's 3 points behind, but the pollsters have overestimated black/Latino/whoever turnout by a net 5 points overall, then he's president. That's not a Bradley effect, that's pollsters engaging in wishful thinking about traditionally low-turnout groups. And it's not that different from what happened in 2004.

Yeah, basically, the people who think it's Obama's by right will scream for the next four years.

Well, I still get pro-Obama calls, and he is allegedly walking away with Wisconsin. Although they're not from Obama; today's were from something affiliated with Planned Parenthood and from the Union I'm in.

This is off topic, but I'll just congratulate my Mom here for becoming a Life Master in bridge! Yay Mom!

Lordy, thank you God, thank you! Strict Neutrality be damned, thank you Lordy! She's seen the light and not a lightworker, she's seen the truth, and its not the lightworker, she's seen the path of righteousness and its not that of The One!

Well, that'll be be my shout if McCain does win. Also, I'll shout out: "The Republic is Saved, Hallelujah!"

I think Mom gets her name printed out in the ACBL magazine. I wonder if it's online? I'll have to check that out in a couple months.

We learned bridge growing up and usually played it Christmas night. I love all card games, and am pretty good in most, but I could never beat my Mom in bridge. She's killer. I've not played for ever, but I still know you should have 13 points for an opening bid.

re: the Polls: every poll I have seen has around 8-10 percent more democrats in it than republicans, if you believe that the actually electorate will look that that come election day, then the polls are probably accurate, I personally think that's not going to happen. I'm not sure it ever has, has it ?

Some of the polls, I just have to laugh at, Obama winning Florida by 7 ? Really ? come on, please. stop it, I think there's some wishful thinking going on in pollsterville.

Anecdotally, living in NY, not exact a hotbed of conservatism, I know a ton of democrats voting for mccain, I have heard of absolutely zero republicans going for Obama. I also find it hard to believbe that Obama is going to ebat mccain in many of these battleground states where he couldn't even get majority of dems to vote for him over hillary....I was very concerned about turnout early on, but Palin has erased that concern in my view...the base is fired up, they're gonna show up on the 4th. I see the press going ga ga over the "huge crowds" that come out for obama, but they always appear to be in spots like Philly and St Louis where there's a zillion african americans, there's a natural ceiling there....my inital thought on Obama as the nominee was " what does he add to the dem ticket ?" meaning, African Americans already vote for the dem at a 97 percent clip, ditto for college kids...who does he bring to the table that wasn't already there ?

I think McCain wins OH, FL, NH, and most of the Bush states, except New Mexico and Indiana, he will probably lose michigan, but he has a legit shot in PA, and Murtha's not helping.

The media wants this to be over, they tried the same thing with the Dem nomination, but people seem to have their own ideas, then as now.